New Attack Launched Against Trump’s Corrupt US Attorney Scheme
INSIDE: Todd Blanche ... Roger Rogoff ... Mohsen Mahdawi
A Low-Key U.S. Attorneys Scandal
Eighteen months in, President Trump’s strategy to circumvent the Senate on the appointment of U.S. attorneys does not yet seem to have sunken in as one of the defining elements of bringing the Justice Department to heel under the White House.
While Trump’s appointments of charlatans like Alina Habba and Lindsey Halligan to temporary gigs as U.S. attorneys have been headline-grabbers, they are only part of of a larger Trump scheme to seize control of the appointment of U.S. attorneys in blue states despite what the Constitution’s Appointments Clause and federal statutes say.
Trump’s play is basically this: With blue state senators essentially having a veto over U.S. attorneys in their states (thanks to the Senate’s blue-slip tradition), Trump has used a variety of different workarounds to get his preferred people into those U.S. attorney slots. Those workarounds have avoided the constitutionally required Senate confirmation and in some instances have violated the law on acting or interim appointments. In a third use case, where district judges have appointed an interim U.S. attorney, Trump has promptly fired their appointee, and acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has promised to fire future judge-appointed U.S. attorneys unless they are approved by the administration.
Trump’s scheme is about to be put the test by a carefully planned, first-of-its-kind legal challenge from the judge-appointed U.S. attorney in Seattle, Roger Rogoff, who was fired last week by the president within an hour of his appointment.
In his new lawsuit filed in federal court in Washington state yesterday, Rogoff — whose legal team includes former Obama Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. — places his firing in the broader context of Trump’s strategy to circumvent the Senate and the law:
By disregarding the carefully calibrated statutory framework that Congress enacted to address U.S. Attorney vacancies, Defendants ignore Congress’s exercise of its authority under the Appointments Clause to determine how inferior officers are appointed, and they claim the power to install and remove U.S. Attorneys at will in this district—and elsewhere—without Senate confirmation and outside the bounds of federal law. As illustrated in districts across the country, those actions threaten the very harms that the Appointments Clause was intended to prevent, leaving the President (and all future Presidents) free to appoint whomever he chooses as de facto U.S. Attorney indefinitely, regardless of their qualifications for the role.
Rogoff is the fourth judge-appointed U.S. attorneys to be fired, following similar terminations in the Northern District of New York, New Jersey (Habba’s former position), and the Eastern District of Virginia (Halligan’s former position). In New Jersey, the judges and DOJ eventually reached an agreement on a judge-appointed interim U.S. attorney.
Rogoff’s lawsuit points to three other jurisdictions — the Central District of California, New Mexico, and Nevada — where Trump’s workarounds violated the law but district judges have not stepped in to appoint U.S. attorneys.
This case is ultimately about whether the president can install U.S. attorneys indefinitely no matter how unqualified or corrupt or beholden to him they are, and in the process sideline the Senate and judges, to whom the law gives roles in checking the president’s powers in this regard.
What’s next?
Shortly after filing his lawsuit, Rogoff filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to invalidate his removal and to restore him to his position as interim U.S. attorney until the Senate confirms a permanent U.S. attorney. That puts the case on what should be a faster track to resolution, perhaps within weeks. That will largely depend on whichever judge ends up taking the case. It won’t be a local judge since they have an interest in the matter. Expect the 9th Circuit, which covers Washington state, to name an outside judge to hear the case.
But there’s one more wrinkle to this unprecedented case to bear in mind.
The federal judges in Seattle appear to have decided this is a fight they wanted to fight. They asked applicants for the interim position whether they would contest their anticipated firing by the president. Rogoff indicated he would, and they named him to the position. The speed with which Rogoff filed his lawsuit and motion for preliminary injunction, the quality of the complaint, and the caliber of the lawyers representing him all suggests this is going to be a hard fought, fully engaged case that ends up before the 9th Circuit and perhaps the Supreme Court.
The Retribution: Blue State Edition
The Trump administration is withholding an additional $1 billion in Medicaid funds from California and Minnesota based on spurious allegations of fraud.
Mahdawi Loses on Appeal
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a district court lacked jurisdiction when it ordered the release of pro-Palestinian advocate Mohsen Mahdawi from immigration detention, a decision could pave the way for him to be detained again, Reuters reports.
BBC Puts the Screws to Trump
In President Trump’s defamation lawsuit against the BBC, a magistrate judge ruled that Trump must turn over to the broadcaster detailed financial information.
The Corruption: Pardons Edition
In an unprecedented expansion of White House clemency power, President Trump has issued pardons for companies, not just people, Bloomberg reports.
A Virtually Infinite Enemies List
At The Bulwark, Matt McManus chronicles the far-right’s ever-growing enemies list, with its special focus on racial minorities, feminists, and intellectuals.
News? Tips? Feedback? Please let me know. For sensitive information, use the encrypted methods here.
I hadn't forseen the power and anyone of these non scotus judges. I'm impressed